There aren't that many players in MEN's tennis that has been #1 without winning at least 1 slam.

Many more that has won slams or been in slam finals without ever being close to #1 aren't there?

#1 is actually a better "quality" guarantee. Harder to fluke #1 as the system works, than to fluke slams like the infamous one slam wonders who sometimes haven't even been in the top3 even

So I guess even in GOAT debate #1 should be seen as more difficult. Got a harder time seeing someone passing Federers weeks at nr1 than passing federers 17 slams.

slams you only need to be awesome for 4 tournaments a year. To hold #1 you need to be awesome all season. So in theory #1 has more prestige to it

The only #1 who didn't win a slam since the dawn of computer rankings in 1973 is Rios.

You think Federer's 299 and counting weeks are a better record than 17 slams? I don't. I think someone else will reach 299 weeks as #1 before someone else wins 17 slams (regardless of any later Fed improvements). After all, Sampras and Lendl are not that far back - ca. 4,5% for Sampras and 10% for Lendl. The difference %-wise to #2 an #3 in slam wins are much greater - 17,5% to Sampras and 35% to Borg/Laver/Nadal. Nadal is exceptional in having so many slams for so "few" weeks as #1 (Borg has similar numbers, but as we know he was cheated by the system and should have had more). I don't think the next double-digit slam winner will have been stuck at #2 for four years.

Who would you say was better: Chang with 1 Slam or Rafter with 1 week as No.1 ? Answer this question and the OQ is also answered.

Rafter of course.
He has 2 slams and #1 ranking.

10-07-2012 02:35 AM

uxyzapenje

Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Slams. But I voted for weeks at #1 bcs I don't think is THAT big of a difference as the poll shows it. I think the question would be like 1 Slam > 1 full year as #1 or 1 Slam < 1 full year as #1... Or if Ferrer or Delpo (or any non current top4 player) would (or was since now there's no chance for that to happen) somehow be ranked no1 at the end of this year, with Novak, Rafa, Roger and Andy winning 1 Slam each, who would be the best player of the year?

10-07-2012 02:25 AM

Federer in 2

Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

"Oh well what's the point of this poll?! MTF is full of Fedtards anyway so they are gonna vote for Slams cause Fed has the most. Oh wait..."

10-07-2012 01:59 AM

Tag

Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

chang also had several other slam finals, plus masters. only thing he didn't have was weeks at no 1, peaked at no 2

chang over rios, easily

anyway, the most important thing for a GOAT candidate is their wins over the muggiest players to ever mug it up at the top of the game

don't see how this ended up discussing stuff like Bjorkman. But you see Bjorman won 9 slams and was nr1..........in doubles! He was quite the player.

For the topic: In men's tennis it usually goes hand in hand anyway. Federer, Sampras both spent a huge amount of weeks as nr1 as they collected slams.

A 14-15 slam winner that hasn't spent 200+ weeks as nr would feel very wrong. Maybe Nadal can become one as he spent so much time as nr2. But Nadal's resume has bigger holes than that so probably nothing that keeps Rafito awake at night.

Slams is what media and casuals focus most on so guess it's most important. Only the true tennis fans really care about time spent at #1. Many casual fans don't even understand the ranking system in the first place and the concept of defending points and so forth.

Vice versa. Fans can not know about prestigious of some tournaments, but all realize what it means to be #1.

#1 is the same thing for any branch in life, it`s easier to understand and estimate.

don't see how this ended up discussing stuff like Bjorkman. But you see Bjorman won 9 slams and was nr1..........in doubles! He was quite the player.

For the topic: In men's tennis it usually goes hand in hand anyway. Federer, Sampras both spent a huge amount of weeks as nr1 as they collected slams.

A 14-15 slam winner that hasn't spent 200+ weeks as nr would feel very wrong. Maybe Nadal can become one as he spent so much time as nr2. But Nadal's resume has bigger holes than that so probably nothing that keeps Rafito awake at night.

Slams is what media and casuals focus most on so guess it's most important. Only the true tennis fans really care about time spent at #1. Many casual fans don't even understand the ranking system in the first place and the concept of defending points and so forth.